Crawford avalanche., 1887-07-28
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Substance Of an Important De-
cision Rendered by the
Commission.
The Payment or Commissions by Con-
Meeting Lines Declared to Be
Not Obligatory.
Washington telegram


Three decisions were rendered by
the Interstate Commerce Commission
on Wednesday. The most important
was the one in relation to the payment
of commiss ons by one road to the
agents of another and connecting road
for sales of through tickets. The
points in dispute grew out of the
commissions and anti-commissions
fight between the seaboard trunk
lines and some of thair
Western connections. The following
three cases were disposed of in the one
opinion: The Chicago and Alton Com
pany against the Pennsylvania Com
pany, the same against the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company, and the Chi
cago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
Company against the New York Gen.
trail and Hudson River Railroad Com
pany. The following synopsis contains
the more important points Of the opin-
ion, which is very long:
The complaints in those cases were founded
upon the third section OF the act to regulate
commerce, and charge violations of that SOC
tion by the defendant companies in refusing
certain facilities for receiving, forwarding, and
delivering passengers to complainants' lines,
consisting Of through or coupon tickets, which,
nies, give, the complainants alleRe. undue end
unreasonable preference to those companies.
The material facts found by the commission are
recited mt length in the opinion. They show
that for several years prior to the time
when the act to regulate commerce took
effect sui stantialy all the railroad COM
panies OF the country, including the COM
plainants and defendants. paid commissions.
The defendant companies and some others for
Rlaats 3beasRse tjGRaxqfs rAs f}laglie SSas-
panies took steps to procure agreements with
their connecting companies to abolish the COM
mission business altogether. With this end in
view they sent printed circulars on or about
March Is last to their connecting companies,
expressing their Willingness to continue to act
as agents in the sale Of through tickets
and stat ng the nature Of the agreement.
The circular of the defendant companies
contained a condition prohibiting the pay
ment OF commissions by other companies
TO its agents. The complainant companies re-
fused to enter into the agreement proposed.
On account of their refusal the defendants.
after April last, refused to sell through tick
cts over the complainants' roads from Chicago
and st. Louis to Kansas City, and still refuse,
solely for those reasons. On these facts the
complainants aver that tho defendants refuse
TO afford them reasonable proper and equal
facilities for receiving, forwarding, and deliv-
ering passengers, and give undue preference to
competing roads in contravention OF the pro-
visions Of the act to regulate commerce.
The defe ndants deny tnat they have violated
the provisions of the act, and claim that they
have the exclusive right to control their agents,
to fix the amount OF their compensation, and to
pay thems elves that the payment Of commits
sions by other companies is demoralizing TO
their agents, and often leads 20 determinations
TO passengers for roads paying large commits, % lis
agent and the passenger; that commission
consume a considerable percentage OF the rev.
onue from the sale OF through tickets; that
without commissions all connecting ROADS stana =
on basis Of equality, and passengers select
their own routes unintuenced by agents having
an interest in the form of commissions in per-
suading them to choose some particular route
Of WI COmmia6iOn has
cognizance are anything done or omitted to be
done in contravention Of the provisions OF the
act to regulate commerce. Railroad corpora
tions in the States the creations Of the State
Governments, and their powers and duties are
| defined by their charters or by general laws.
The act does not make 1t the duty OF State rail-
roads to organize and operate through lines Of
| transportation consisting OF separate roads
owned by different companies. The organiza-
| tion of such lines Is left under the act 10 the
voluntary action Of railroad companies, as II OK
listed previously The law in this instance does
not in terms require ono railroad company q
sell through tickets over the road OF another rail-
| road company. In the absence OF statutory au.
| thority one railroad company can only sell
tickets and chock baggage over the road OF an
| other railroad company by agreement. BY
| agreement between two companies through
tickets, very properly, are sold and used ovei
connecting lines as convenience OF passenger
| traffic and an iuducement for patronage. Sucl
| tickets very evidently are great convenience
IN travellers and perhnps TO connecting roads
| but they are part OF the voluntary arrange
| ments for business purposes like joint tariffs
4 interchange of cars, and common use OF depots
| It being, therefore, under our statute, matte
| Of mutual agreement whether coupon o
through tickets shall be sold by railroad com
pany over roads of some other companies
IL follows that the form OF such ticket
and the manner Of their sale are also matter
Of agreement by tho companies interested. i
companies can agree upon their tariffs, tn
form OF their tickets, and how they shall b
sold, they have the right TO do so. and by sucl
agreemeut become interstate carriers; but
they cannot agree the act does not undertak
to coerce them 70 DO business together upo
furious Through tickets are not indispensabl
| for these purposes but assuming, for the SAX
OF argument that they may be deemed facili
ties' Tor the receiving, forwarding, and deliver
ing of passengers to connecting lines, carrier
are only required to afford reasonable, propel
and equal facilities. They are not required
afford special, unreasonable, improper, or III
|. This presents the question whether the pay
mcnt OF commissions is in itself, or as inc
dental TO the enjoyment of, a facility, reasor
j able and proper within the purvtew OF tn
statute The facility Of through tickets
equally offered TO all, and may be enJoye
without commissions. II the company sellin
, the tickets should charge commission
would doubtless be regarded as an imposition
: and, therefore, unreasonable and tmprope
{ These commissions are gratuities to indus
. special efforts for the company paying then
: II the statute do not give one company al
thority TO subsidize the agents vf another con
pany. and II the practice is injurious In 1
effects it certainly cannot be reasonable al
proper.
For the proper government OF their own su
: ordinates the defendant companies have forbi
| den their agents to receive commissions fro
. other companies, and directed them not to sc
| over roads of companies that refuse 70 reco
! | nize this cooperative authority, but insist
a | subsidizing the agents. In these directions q
a | defendants have not transcribed their reaso
nble rights. One person or corporation has
Q right to interfere with the employees OF anoths
and the statute does not disturb this old al
: sound principle.
8 The defendants might rest upon their right
/, control the official conduct of their own agent
:, Int they 20 further and show by evidence q
practical effects of commissions and that the
r natural and usual tendencies are TO q variety
n abuses
q The opinion then quotes the tes
n mony of an olcer of the Pennsylvan
: Railroad and others to the effect tn
4 commissions were used to Corru
Q agents to sell through tickets over &
q commission-paying lines in preferen
q to others; that these commission
O amounting in the average to 20 p
y cent. of the value of the tickets, we
s frequently divided with the purchase
N thereby making q discrimination
q rates in favor Of the company whi
!. paid the commission, and that ager
IS sometimes received more money frc
10 other companies in this way than th
n received from the companies which e
O. ploy them, and SO passed, in measul
out Of their employers control